TR Foreign Policy & Geopolitics

[Iskander]

There is:

• Good leaders in bad times: Atatürk
• Bad leaders in bad times: Abdülhamid II
• Good leaders in good times: Süleyman the Magnificent
• Bad leaders in good times: Erdoğan

Türkiye was always poised to be a regional superpower. Defence industry was restarted in the 70s, relatively educated population, secular, in a neighborhood of weaklings, has one of the best military traditions in the world and a strong sense of nationalism.

Despite all these advantages:

• Türkiye hasn't been able to defend its borders against illegal immigration, not only from Syria but Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. There are potentially millions of undocumented refugees in Türkiye, including many criminals, rapists, terrorists, etc.
• PKK/YPG has established a state next door and we are now accepting it as a peace process is underway
• Iran continues to give weapons to PKK, including missiles which have hit our drones. We've done absolutely nothing to oppose Iran's illegal activities
• We aren't doing anything to support Turkmens in Iraq or Syria. Despite sharing a common history and language, we've just completely neglected them.
• Countless mistakes which cost us our economy, F35s, chances of entering EU, etc.

Honestly one of the only good things geopolitcally speaking has been Azerbaijani's victory. That's what happens when a Turkic army is well armed and well motivated. I don't attribute this victory to Erdoğan when he still hasn't been able to wipe out YPG.

Most of what Erdoğan has done regionally has been making TSK a counter balance against Russia in Libya and Syria. But in the end this has just benefited US interests, we've done little to capitalize on these victories. In other words, Erdoğan is no different than Islamist puppets that the US supported in the Cold War.

No one in the region, including Russia, and the US wants a Kemalist regime in Türkiye because for the first time in decades, we'll be focusing on our own interests instead of running errands for others.

If the EU had accepted Türkiye, I would probably have been a supporter of Kılıçdaroğlu or İmamoğlu. But this did not happen.
It was under Erdoğan that Türkiye began to pursue a completely independent policy on the international arena, thanks to which it defends exclusively its national interests. Imagine Türkiye in the EU. Can Ankara pursue such a policy? Obviously not. Look at Hungary and Slovakia. The foreign policy that Brussels is pursuing, for example, regarding the war in Ukraine, judging by their resistance, does not meet the national interests of these two (and not only them) countries. But they can do nothing. Germany and France play leading roles in the EU. To what extent can the national interests of France, Germany and Türkiye coincide? Can Türkiye resist these two (and several other of their yes-men) countries? I cannot imagine it.
The other day, Macron said that since Europe is the basis of security, France takes on the guarantee of the security of all of Europe. Can this chatterbox be trusted? France cannot even solve its problems in Africa.
Whose interests will the French defend, say, in the Eastern Mediterranean? The Christian Greeks or the alien Muslim Türkiye? Or in the South Caucasus, whose interests are closer to them? The Christian Armenians or the Turks?
And in Africa, in Asia, the same thing.
When the Turkish parliament decided to send troops to protect the legitimate government of Libya, I, as a supporter of Turkic unity, was very upset.
But it worked! Türkiye was able to protect the Tripoli government, despite the ridiculous movements of France, defended its interests in Africa, acquiring 2 military bases there, and much more.
The French barely managed to escape from Chad, and the next day Turkish specialists from the Baykar company appeared at the French base.
The interests of Europe more or less often coincide. And how could Türkiye, say, defend Turkish interests in the European Parliament? Are there many supporters of Türkiye there? After the shooting down of the Russian fighter, NATO's refusal to provide Patriot and many other incidents... Where was Europe then, where was France hiding?

There are dozens of such examples.

I consider Erdogan's foreign policy to be very successful. Türkiye has become an influential force in the world.

(I deliberately do not write about the internal politics of Ak Parti, to avoid misunderstandings with our Turkish brothers on the forum)

 

[GoatsMilk]

"The French magazine Le Point featured President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in its issue titled "2025, the new world order."
4 LEADERS WHO WILL LEAD THE NEW WORLD ORDER
The cover, which shows President Erdoğan as one of the four leaders who will lead the new world order, also featured US President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin" (Haber7)

View attachment 73792

Monsieur Macron n'est pas mentionné

librairies indépendantes

En 1 clic, 700 librairies et 20 millions de livres à 2 pas

www.librairiesindependantes.com

"when we are successful and we will be."

Turkish President Abdullah Gül said: "I don't think you can control all the world from one centre. There are big nations. There are huge populations. There is unbelievable economic development in some parts of the world. So what we have to do is, instead of unilateral actions, act all together, make common decisions and have consultations with the world. A new world order, if I can say it, should emerge."

Abdullah Gul. AK party and the rulers of Turkiye know the game.

Two camps, those who believe the new world order should be ruled from a central authority like the UN. The other camp who believes it should be ruled from various centres.

The democrats are for one centre, the authoritarians are for power centres. So when the image shows Trump, Putin, chinese dude, erdogan, its the side who believes the "new world order" should have various centres of control.

But know this Muslims, this agenda is anti-Islamic, anti-Allah.

 

[Iskander]

"when we are successful and we will be."

Turkish President Abdullah Gül said: "I don't think you can control all the world from one centre. There are big nations. There are huge populations. There is unbelievable economic development in some parts of the world. So what we have to do is, instead of unilateral actions, act all together, make common decisions and have consultations with the world. A new world order, if I can say it, should emerge."

Abdullah Gul. AK party and the rulers of Turkiye know the game.

Two camps, those who believe the new world order should be ruled from a central authority like the UN. The other camp who believes it should be ruled from various centres.

The democrats are for one centre, the authoritarians are for power centres. So when the image shows Trump, Putin, chinese dude, erdogan, its the side who believes the "new world order" should have various centres of control.

But know this Muslims, this agenda is anti-Islamic, anti-Allah.

All possible new centers of power will most likely be anti-Islamic.
In general, everyone will be against everyone.
The question is whether the Turkic and/or Muslim countries will be able to create a separate Center of Power. If not, then everything could be very sad for us.

 

[TR_123456]

All possible new centers of power will most likely be anti-Islamic.
In general, everyone will be against everyone.
The question is whether the Turkic and/or Muslim countries will be able to create a separate Center of Power. If not, then everything could be very sad for us.

Religion,race based unions have no future,it should be nation based.
The Turkic Union if the intention is to build a centre of power should also include non Turkic countries.
Asian,African even South American to have a chance of succes.
If Pakistan is included you have an Ocean,Malaysia(mixed people) is another Ocean,Venezuela would be another good addition(not about Maduro).
Start with Senegal/Ethopia in Africa.